Pardon my personal plug here, but it is related. I'm returning home this morning from Cincinnati, where the team from Western New England College School of Law got to the seminfinal round in the Rendigs Memorial Products Liability Moot Court competition. It was our first year participating, and to get to the final four was a terrific result (and, so far as anyone recalls, unprecedented for new participants).

The team -- made up of 3Ls Stephanie Schlatter and Neal Eriksen and 2L Andy Kralios -- wrote a terrific brief [PDF] and presented the arguments very well, receiving uniformly excellent feedback from the judges.

The problem [PDF] was a good one, involving interesting and close questions about duty to subsequent purchasers, open and obvious dangers, sophisticated users, and (in what made my heart sing) a dispute about whether Frye or Daubert is the better standard for scientific evidence.

Thanks to everyone at the University of Cincinnati College of Law for running a great competition, and congratulations to the finalist teams, both from South Texas College of Law.